2021 is my last year of USAWS

[JackQ]

Having the information in the AWSA minutes, if you would have searched for them can hardly be construed as knowing and certainly does not in a way mean communication with the membership. This is not even F work.

[Horton]

@Broussard the simple facts the matter is people don't read every email. It's extremely rare in an email from the association is very consequential. So if @sunperch and many others didn't read that original email I don't know why it surprises you.

[buechsr]

@Horton

They might not (read every email), but that's not USAWS's problem. Just like when they sent emails soliciting survey responses on breaking up the junior divisions. Everyone had the opportunity to opine. Some did, some didn't. If people were opposed to breaking it up, and didn't provide a survey response or communicate with AWSA, that's on them, not the organization. It's not USAWS's job to go door to door to ask for permission to do something. Bottom line, this was not a surprise. Personally, I "seem" to recall more than just one email.

[skiinxs]

I pretty much ignore all the email they send out now since I am bombarded with spam from them like "special deals on new high quality blinker fluid, buy now!"

[ToddL]

@skiinxs - Yep. That Perks stuff is some points-based crap. My employer used to negotiate awesome (25-50% off market prices) employee deals with our customers and suppliers' products. Then, they stopped and enrolled in this same Perks crap. I hate it. Now it feels like a RTIC play on words of "20% of the already over priced competition".

[skiinxs]

@ToddL

Yep, between the spam and the horrendous website that I used to check daily before the "upgrade" and now I no longer go to, I feel pretty disconnected from the organization.

[Broussard]

@Horton I am not surprised that he did not read the email, in fact I am sure many did not. I am just pointing out that claiming that USA-WSWS did not inform the membership is completely inaccurate.

 

In addition to the email sent on April 6, 2021 the following verbiage was included in emails notifying the membership of temporary suspensions by SafeSport: "As a reminder, all USA-WSWS members (18 years and older) are required to be SafeSport Trained before Jan. 1, 2022 in order to maintain active membership and participate in USA-WSWS sanctioned activity. Get ahead of the game and complete your SafeSport training today!"

 

These emails were sent on: September 22 and September 29. The verbiage was also included in newsletters sent out on July 13, September 15, October 19, and December 18. Additionally, there was an email sent out on December 29th detailing the SafeSport decision.

 

In addition to these emails from USA-WSWS I am sure that the decision was discussed at regional meetings by the EVPs and sent out via email to the various region members by their respective EVPs.

 

All that not notwithstanding, there is still 60 days left to complete the training before the first sanctioned tournament of the year.

[ALPJr]

Jeepers! Maybe next time they could have those little planes that fly the “$5 pitchers of beer” ad banners over the ocean beaches in the summertime fly all around the country with membership updates. Come on guys let’s chat about skiing.

[rfa]

My town has an alert system whereby they communicate through e-mail, text msg, website and Facebook for emergency and other important events. I am registered on all four. However, I have told them repeatedly I do not check my emails, msgs or FB, and I don't like their website, because...yeah, spam. BUT I need to be informed!

 

I apologize for the sarcasm. But, really?

 

 

 

[JackQ]

Information on the safesport requirement has been out there but I still believe a conference call such as the one this week should have been conducted last year at a minimum to educate and inform membership. However, I do not recall any information pertaining to a background check for officials being promulgated. Other than the treads on BOS.

[Horton]

There is always a "Signal-to-Noise Ratio" problem with mass communications. Some of you read every email carefully and some of you only open the ones that seen actionable.

 

This tangent reminds me of....

[ScarletArrow]

@buechsr It's absolutely their problem, and it only underscores how bad they are at communicating with their constituents.

 

If your audience doesn't receive or understand your message, the responsibility to change is completely on the sender, not the receiver.

[buechsr]

@ScarletArrow I'm not saying it's not A problem, it's not THEIR problem. If grown adults can't read an email, for whatever reason, that was communicated on multiple occasions as both I recall and Broussard has specifically cited, you can't blame the sender. You just can't. It's not their job to send someone door to door. But, if you're saying something like the town hall should have happened earlier in the process, fair enough, but there were not even many people on the call that took place Monday.

 

This is not unlike someone being upset at their local city council for a decision when they didn't show up to speak, and then blame the body for not communicating that a decision was going to be made in a communication that they prefer. Not their job, nor responsibility to change.

[Dirt]

@buechsr you have had some legitimate points throughout this thread. The problem I see is that USAWS acts like we are lucky they let us be a part of the organization and ski. We must do whatever stupidity and jump through all the hoops they mandate yet they talk about growing the sport and ask us to help.

The two positions are polar opposite. This will significantly shrink an already dying sport and encourage someone to start a competing organization.

 

[Dirt]

I do plan on complying with the safesport requirement when I find some time. Perhaps during an airport appreciation day.

I don’t plan to give up my SS # or pay for a background check.

[ScarletArrow]

But, if you're saying something like the town hall should have happened earlier in the process, fair enough, but there were not even many people on the call that took place Monday.

@buechsr

I think we agree on this.

I was not on the call b/c I was travelling home (through a blizzard) from a snow ski trip.

I did find it odd that the first town hall I've ever been aware of for USAWS was scheduled on a national holiday (I realize for many/most it's just a normal work day).

[ToddL]

We've had a long thread discussion, most regions have had meetings, the townhall has occurred. Let's measure where things are...

 

Survey Link: https://forms.gle/mNXijTa4LrEn4Gf1A

 

You can only respond once. You can share the link with others. It is fully anonymous, your IP or email will not be stored with your answer, nor saved with the survey.

 

[LeonL]

I can say with full confidence that SS will reduce membership. The "join on site" will die once they realize that the membership is dependent on an online course. It will be a real deterrent gaining new members.

Oh, since someone brought up the subject, I really detest the constant barrage of "deals" offered to me. It's akin to selling my email to various companies, under the guise of membership perks. (Off topic I know, but.....)

[ForrestGump]

@buechsr I respectively disagree. Membership renewal #s are dependent on communication in this instance. Therefore maintaining membership renewals during this change in requirements/procedures is dependent on their communications/marketing plan reaching the members and being understood. If your communications/marketing plan doesn't hit the mark, it's not the person you're attempting to contact's fault. It's yours for devising a communications/marketing plan, which effects a revenue generating program, that is misaligned with your customer base. That doesn't change whether you are a Billion $ corporation or a $100k a year mom and pop business or a not for profit.

[Hockdog]

Another generic email from USAWS in my inbox, on top of the mind-numbing hundreds of marketing emails everyone gets from every retailer/credit card company/home improvement center/etc/etc/etc, will get overlooked and mass deleted every time I clean up my inbox. Digital marketing has watered down the efficacy of an e-mail, but a letter in my mailbox in front of my house still gets my attention when I reach in to get my mail. I certainly will not be sending my SS# to an unknown third party entity online, I don’t even like typing in my credit card info whenever I order stuff online…….

[rfa]

@ForrestGump, Respectfully as well, not all "Communication is marketing". Some (if not most) is strictly informational. But let's agree that "Membership renewal #s are dependent on communication in this instance". And let's also agree for now, that the comments on BOS may or may not not be statistically significant for the total membership (I have no idea).

 

As documented above, there were emails, website articles, newsletters, meetings, as well as this thread, (i.e. communications) dating back to April '21. This seems to have triggered a number of recent reasons why we remain uninformed.

 

Don't like the website

Email Spam

Don't like Perks

Work schedules

Travel plans

etc.

 

See, no longer just "no information". We just don't like how it is given.

 

(To be clear, I fully respect these personal opinions).

 

So, in reality, no one here should be uninformed because of lack of information, but rather because we don't access that information. So, to your "marketing" point, the organization should change the website, send paper mail, stop perks, survey our work and travel schedules, etc. Of course, it must first determine whether these reasons are representative of the majority of membership. Right? Are they? I don't know. What do you think and/or suggest the organization do?

 

While I was being sarcastic in my previous post about how I "handled" my town's communication methods, it it is true that they use e-mail, text msg, website and Facebook for alerts and special events. Complaining I am uniformed because I don't like/use any of them does not really "fly".

 

[ghutch]

Update on my report of taking SS in 15 minutes. I had to contact Melanie at AWSA because the link it sent me to was the wrong one. That one did only take 15 min but it was for Mandatory Reporting. I did take the correct one and it did take a little over an hour. They make you stay on the page and keep checking boxes. A bit of a pain but not too bad. Just wanted to clarify with everyone that it did take longer than 15 min and unfortunately you can't just keep clicking next. Hope this all gets taken care of. Didn't mind SS but BGC with SSN aint happening.

[ForrestGump]

@rfa Sorry I wasn't clear and I modified it. This is an interesting situation because of the fact that you're talking about a program that generates recurring revenue. My company does a billion $ in recurring renewal revenue a year so we go through this. What you find in that is that your costs to service the customer, in tis case us to manage tournaments/scores/nationals, is very close to the same whether you're talking about 2000 or 10000 users. It's not a 5x difference in resources and cost. So if there is a net loss of 30% of renewals over this, it can cause a significant shortfall because your costs don't necessarily drop 30%. That's the gotcha here.

[Inboardfix]

During the meeting Monday a participant made the statement when you take the Safesport program you waive all rights to a trial by jury and agree arbitration w/be binding. @lpskier is this true and if so, as an attorney would you recommend a client of yours accept this stipulation?

 

[rfa]

@ForrestGump

Thank you for the reply. I understood (and agree) with your "business model" explanation!

My issue was only with the reasons given for "being uninformed" after it was shown that several types of communications had been provided by the organization.

But in full agreement that in this case, renewal revenue loss does not equate to operating cost savings.

[lpskier]

I’ll be happy to provide you with a legal opinion once your retainer is received in my Venmo account. ;-)Arbitration in sport is nothing new. Virtually all sport disputes are resolved in arbitration. If you get a dirty blood test back and are accused of steroid use, do you go to court or arbitration? Sport arbitration can not result in jail or in a judgment against you (except in some cases a fine), and the result of an arbitration is rarely admissible in evidence in a criminal or civil trial because of differing burdens of proof. While you might prefer the opportunity to sue in court if you don’t like the decision of a SS arbitration, it would be entirely impractical from the point of view of the NGB. Budgets couldn’t handle numerous litigations and that litigation would not be covered by insurance. Since there are no penal or monetary consequences associated with SS arbitration and it is offered to you on a take it or leave it basis as a condition of being allowed to participate in the Sport administered by the NGB, and since there is a long history of sport disputes being being resolved in arbitration (in both professional and amateur ranks), my advice would be that if you want to ski in tournaments, you have no alternative other than to agree to arbitration. Bear in mind, I have just voiced my opinion and I have not just given anyone legal advice upon which they should rely.If you want really good advice, try this: If you just don’t violate SS rules, you just won’t end up in arbitration. That cute 16 year old girl in the bikini? Hint: Don’t tell her she looks hot and don’t take a photo of her butt and put it on your Instagram feed. Like my mom used to say about pregnancy: If you don’t do it, you won’t get it.

 

[lpskier]

An additional benefit of arbitration: YOU don’t get sued. If you really want to feel pain, you can get sued and then pay to put my kids through college while I defend you.

[sunperch]

@lpskier that was a gross comment to make towards @Inboardfix. He is the father of two young women and is the last person I would think of being inappropriate. Sarcastic probably but not inappropriate. I thought his question was very appropriate especially given the fact that an easily made unsubstantiated claim against a male could have severe consequences to one's reputation.

[lpskier]

@sunperch I don’t know @Inboardfix, but my comments were directed to the group even though I was responding to his question.

 

And frankly, the question asked was (at least to me) intended to put me on the spot, and I didn’t really appreciate it.

[dave2ball]

@sunperch @Inboardfix if you ask a question don’t be offended by the answer. If you think you don’t think you will like the answer or may be offended don’t ask. Plain and simple.

[Inboardfix]

@sunperch as always you're my hero. However, I took it as @lpskier just explained.

 

@lpskier sorry you took my comment as putting you on the spot. Wasn't meant that way but rather to ask if the statement was true and if so, you're opinion based on your expertise. As I've told you in person when we met at Faith Lake, I always read your comments because I respect your opinion (don't always agree w/it but do respect it). Also, I assumed you knew my BOS call tag. I'm Kate's Dad/Tim.

 

I'm not serious about tournament skiing and only ski the State Championships in order to support the host club. However, I do support Jr. Events in our State. Our event at Faith has grown from 12 participants 3 years ago to 26 this past season w/several non tournament skiers attending (true potential for growth of the sport, imo). In this capacity I feel members like me are a benefit to the organization and essential for it's growth.

 

It is questionable I will be able to convince the owner's of our lake/facility to continue supporting the Jr. activities we do based on my interpretation of the Safesport requirements/club obligations. My comment/question to you earlier was an attempt to fully understand/clarify why a Government entity would require me to sign away rights. It was posed to you after being told by a 40+ year member of the organization they are done if it is true.

 

You have done a great job listing facts which are prefaced by the underlining assumption AWSA is under the umbrella of USAwaterski/IWWF. Not wanting to put you on the spot but rather would appreciate your opinion on the following things I think are true/facts:

 

1. Safesport is required for all sports under the umbella of the NGB. AWSA falls into this category because of it's association w/USAwaterski/IWWF.

2. The primary benefit of AWSA's inclusion w/USAwaterski/IWWF are events such as World's, PanAM games and monetary contributions based on these activities.

3. If a sports entitity doesn't fall under the NGB, Safesport is not required. Obviously, the rule of law still applies but the redundant overreaction by Government, i.e. Safesport isn't required.

4. Based on the above if AWSA breaks away from USAwaterski there will be no Safesport requirement.

 

No, I'm not convinced AWSA leaving is in the best interest of the sport but I'm not convinced it isn't. What I am convinced of is it is doubtful we will continue growing the sport at our facility as a Sponsoring Club as we've done the last several years.

 

As things stand now I plan to not pay the $175 club fee and look for alternatives to USAwaterski for our Jr. Event. If a viable alternative presents itself great, we'll continue to hosts events which should indirectly help AWSA. If a viable alternative isn't availble our lake will become another of the many private sites used by very few private owners for their own benefit only.

 

 

[lpskier]

@Inboardfix Hi Tim. Now I know who I’m talking to. As an aside, since @Horton has been working on the site recently, I have intermittently lost the ability to determine who is writing what. If I had known it was you, I would have known you weren’t putting me on the spot.

 

To answer your questions, I think the answer to 1 and 2 is generally speaking, yes.

 

3 is maybe yes, maybe no, depending on what you mean by a sports entity. If you want to start a non-sanctioned tournament at your lake, or even if you want to start a small league of some sort, you are probably SS exempt. If you grow to a point where your entity is running a sport nationally, you are probably an NGB. This leads us to 4.

 

4. Let’s say AWSA breaks away from USAWSWS. What is AWSA’s function at that point? I would assume that it sanctions tournaments around the country, accredits officials, hosts a Nationals, etc. Guess what? It’s a NGB by definition. And as an NGB, it has a SS obligation no different from that of USAWSWS. But, since USAWSWS is the water sport NGB recognized by the USOPC, AWSA would be an NGB that gets no money from USOPC and is not recognized by IWWF. This means that athletes that compete in international events or events sanctioned by the IWWF, and those aspiring to ski internationally on Elite World teams, Jr World teams, Senior World teams and Pan Am teams (elite, junior, and senior) or to compete in those events as an independent, will have to belong to two organizations. For officials to officiate at international events, they would have to belong to two organizations. So there is no advantage to anyone created by AWSA leaving USAWSWS as far as SS is concerned, and there are some big downsides.

 

I miss your point about clubs and lake use. There are no new obligations placed on sites and clubs other than posting a simple notice at the registration table at tournaments. Club insurance affords the same coverages as before, including SAM (sexual abuse of minors) coverage. If you sanction a practice or a tournament (and comply with the “normal” safety and driver requirements), you are covered. Nothing has changed.

 

As to the SS impediment to “growing the sport,” I see this as a short term problem. SS is increasingly prevalent in sport, especially youth sport. I have personally spoken with officials, coaches and participants in a variety of other sports (ski racing, snowboarding, Nordic skiing, baseball and bobsled/luge/skeleton to name a few) and SS is a general requirement. Background checks seem to be routine at least for coaches and officials. None of these sports have reported diminished participation due to SS. Parents will come to expect SS in sports their children participate in. While SS maybe an issue today, tomorrow it will be so common we’ll wonder what the brouhaha was all about.

[lpskier]

Here’s my favorite sexual harassment in sport story. It’s reputed to be true and was told to me as such, but as with many good stories, you never know for sure:

 

A good friend of mine is the women’s head coach in an Olympic sport. It’s team selection time prior to the Winter games and the sport has specific team selection criteria, with one spot going to the coach’s discretion based on what athlete is hot at the moment - hot as in performance, not appearance. My friend makes his selection, and a couple woman are upset because they didn’t make the team. So they sue the NGB and the coach personally alleging that they weren’t selected because they had spurned the coach’s sexual advances, alleging among other things that he had tried to kiss one of them without her consent. They filed their complaint in court and simultaneously delivered a copy to the Sports editor at the New York Times, in what to many was an obvious attempt to sue their way onto the team.

 

The coach hires his parents’ crusty attorney, a bulldog litigator and another friend of mine.

 

A few days later, the attorney receives a phone call from a Times reporter, and among the questions and answers was the following:

Reporter: “Did Mr. A try to kiss Ms B?”

Lawyer: “God no, have you seen the woman?”

 

Ultimately, and notwithstanding my lawyer-friend’s insensitive but hilarious comment, my coach friend lost his job and I don’t believe the women involved made that year’s team.

[Inboardfix]

@lpskier thank you John. Your explanations will allow me to have an informed meeting w/the owners. Hope you're able to drop by and take a set on one of your many Airstream trips. Ski well.

[ToddL]

Here are the current survey responses summarized.

 

 

Survey Link: https://forms.gle/mNXijTa4LrEn4Gf1A

Please share this with any AWSA people you know.

[ForrestGump]

@lpskier

hahahaha That made me laugh out loud. It sounds like something that I'd say.

[Horton]

Source

https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Water-Ski/News/2022/January/31/USA-WSWS-Board-Elects-Officers-Approves-Annual-Budget

 

Action Item – Background Checks for Judges: insert updated language for background screening requirement: “USA Water Ski & Wake Sports requires criminal background screening (‘background screening’ or ‘background check’) for individuals involved with its programs as part of a greater effort to promote a safe environment for members. Background screening must be completed for all certified instructors/coaches, participants and staff of national/international teams, show ski team show directors and assistant directors, USA-WSWS judges (who are 18 and older) who are selected and approved by USA Water Ski & Wake Sports or one of its Sport Disciplines to officiate at a National Championships event, or any IWWF World Championships or Multi Sports event (e.g. World Games), or Pan American Confederation Titled Event, junior development coaches and leadership, and any volunteer, third-party vendor or contractor who are (a) in position of authority over or (b) in regular contact with athletes. In addition, background screening must also be completed for all staff members, USA-WSWS and Sport Discipline Board Members, and other members/individuals designated by USA-WSWS in its sole discretion.”

 

Bottom Line - background checks only apply to a handful of officials. So the sky is not actually falling.

[jayski]

"and any volunteer, third-party vendor or contractor who are (a) in position of authority over or (b) in regular contact with athletes"

 

"and other members/individuals designated by USA-WSWS in its sole discretion.”

 

Someone explain these sections...I mean this can easily be read as every person at a tourney is a "volunteer" so....????

 

and then we have the open "we can pick and choose at our discretion who has to do a background check" statement??

[Horton]

I spoke to my regional EVP today. His explanation was that this would only apply to appointed officials at Nationals and worlds and similar events as well as the people who have the title "coach" and escort junior skiers at international events. In other words it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the membership who are officials. I don't think it applies to officials at Nationals unless they're appointed so again just doesn't apply to most of us.

[lpskier]

@Horton

You are correct. No background check for the many “volunteer judges” at Nationals. This question was specifically asked and answered at the AWSA board meeting Saturday.

[jayski]

@Horton maybe that's what he assumes or say's but it's not how it's worded or could be used in a certain manner based on verbiage...kinda back to the "spirit of the rule" thing...but a board could EASILY use what is written and apply it EVERYONE if they so choose...having sat on a few the wording was done for ease of implementation of a blanket BGC when they want, even if they are not going to push it right now because of the noise....

[klindy]

@jayski it applies to everyone it previously applied too and appointed AND SELECTED judges (not drivers, not scorers m, not TCs) at Nationally titled events and international events. It does not apply to tournaments with an IWWF sanction unless it’s a World titled event (AMD the official is selected for it). It literally applies to maybe a couple dozen judges who don’t have a background check already. Remember that many of us that volunteer for these events are already screened because we’re on a board or similar.

[jayski]

@klindy sowhy word it in a way that can easily be used as a broad paint brush??

[klindy]

@jayski I don’t know it’s an action by the USAWSWS board. After hearing all the details it’s likely to helps meet the requirements of a USOPC audit request. All I know is it’s been quite clear that the ONLY new group required to submit for a background check are the appointed and selected judges at national events. So even those that put their name in for appointed/assigned judges don’t need the BGC unless they are selected. I personally asked for that clarification at the AWSA meeting. I can assure you that there were LOTS of pointed, direct questions presented for more than an hour. We walked thru virtually every detail.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Yeah but……

The real takeaway was not so much the bg check but the “requirement” to provide ssn and/or pii for the bg check. Both the southern and south central regions expressed major heartburn on this topic. Lots of discussion with no real resolution except that USAWS would look at how to protect PII at the BOD mtg.

 

When you provide your ssn to your employer they are liable for any data breach. Crickets from USAWS on any responsibility/liability for any identity theft.

 

I’m not holding my breath for a meaningful response.

 

My gut feel is that there will be a grand total of 3 appointed judges at nationals who will be working all events with a handful of volunteers. We shall see how that works out.

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield AWSA rule 6.01.J lists the number of judges to be appointed depending on the site. So it won’t be “a grand total of 3”. And as I said above the majority of the officials who even submit their names to be selected have already passed a BGC for other reasons.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@klindy my post was a little sarcastic but I stand by my comment that USAWS will be begging for judges at nationals.

[Dirt]

I watched Cheer on netflix season 2 episode 5 maybe. It was another story about how safesport is a joke. They did nothing after reports of athlete misconduct. The FBI only did something after the media did a story on it. The current president wanted to meet the perp at the white house.

[ski6jones]

So let's turn it around. I would not sign a document asserting I would comply with the verbage Horton posted if I knew I was planning to be a volunteer official of any capacity at any tournament and didn't have BGC. As I read that as a volunteer in contact with athletes I should have a BGC.

 

The verbage doesn't match what people say it means.

 

Compliance with the MAAPP is the same. Lots of stuff in there that the LOC is supposed to do or check, but the explanation of how to address is "send an email to participants".

[Drago]

Just...

 

Quit